The graphic user interface of Windows 10 has many inexplicable design flaws. Some of the flaws are "small" but have a large impact on user usability.

As an example, the file sub-folder indents in Windows Explorer in Windows 10 are simply too small for good differentiation in viewing. We find that peering for hours per day at a screen is made even more tiresome by navigating the overly "tightly placed" files in Windows 10, especially if there are many of them to be used. Design should primarily follow FUNCTION, rather than form.

Thankfully, there is a solution at the program Classic Shell which provides this menu option:

"Full-size offset for sub-folders
("When this is checked, the subfolders will be offset by the full size of the [folder] icon, instead of the half of the size")".

That "small" change makes a "big" difference and is essential to those of us who may be somewhat older and no longer have the eyes of an eagle. Greater offsets make working with sub-folder files in Explorer much, much easier.

"Better readability" is why text paragraphs in books are normally indented more than just one letter. It makes reading easier. Indeed, we are waiting for Blogger to come to this recognition as well, as there is no provision at all for indents. Instead, we separate paragraphs by empty lines. It reads better.

The entire file Explorer interface pays little attention to user comfort and is especially flawed in taking the protection of user eyesight into account. Good examples are the teeny-tiny "forward" and "back" arrows in Windows Explorer, which by their poor placement, minuscule size and hard-to-spot gray color are hard to spot in practical daily usage and one is constantly "looking" for them.

Design "amateurs" in Redmond wrongly opted for minimalist "form" rather than proper function, and that flaw permeates Windows 10.

We need arrows that are immediately spotted and are ergonomically placed. Frequently used, operational image icons must be readily VISIBLE!

We do not know if it will work for you, but Classic Shell definitely has numerous sensible features that -- for us -- are vast improvements over the flawed Windows 10 graphic user interface and design.

Addendum: Classic Shell also has an option -- Tree Item Spacing -- for the file Explorer to make the spacing between the files larger, thus putting more white space between the entries. We set this value at "1" rather than "0" and for us, it makes it much easier to navigate the files.

"The call to the bar is a legal term of art in most common law jurisdictions where persons must be qualified to be allowed to argue in court on behalf of another party, and are then said to have been "called to the bar" or to have received a "call to the bar". "The bar" is now used as collective noun for barristers, but literally referred to the wooden barrier in old courtrooms, which separated the often crowded public area at the rear from the space near the judges reserved for those having business with the Court.

Barristers would sit or stand immediately behind it, facing the judge, and could use it as a table for their briefs. Like many other common law terms, the term originated in England in the Middle Ages, and the call to the bar refers to the summons issued to one found fit to speak at the 'bar' of the royal courts. In time, the English judges allowed only legally qualified men to address them on the law, and later delegated the qualification and admission of barristers to the four Inns of Court. Once an Inn calls one of its members to its bar, they are thereafter a barrister. They may not, however, practice as a barrister until they have completed (or been exempted from) a pupillage. After completing pupillage they are considered to be a practising barrister with a right of audience before all courts."

This limitation from the Middle Ages on who was qualified to address judges in court led to the similar development in the USA that limits "the practice of law" to persons who are licensed to do so by the applicable State "bar" association, which serves as the modern "bar" viz. "economic barrier to entry" to being licensed as an "attorney at law".

This monopolistic licensing of attorneys has been successful historically in promoting the rule of law in America, but has run into problems in our modern technological age, where the traditional scope of "law" has increased dramatically and where many new challenges must be faced.

Various new demands of the digital era have necessarily given rise to what can only be called a large market for "nontraditional legal services" that do not always fit neatly into bar association standards of what constitutes the qualified viz. licensed "practice of law".

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association adopts the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services, dated February, 2016.

ABA Model Regulatory Objectivesfor the Provision of Legal Services

A. Protection of the publicB. Advancement of the administration of justice and the rule of lawC. Meaningful access to justice and information about the law, legal issues, and the civil and criminal justice systemsD. Transparency regarding the nature and scope of legal services to be provided, the credentials of those who provide them, and the availability of regulatory protections E. Delivery of affordable and accessible legal servicesF. Efficient, competent, and ethical delivery of legal services G. Protection of privileged and confidential informationH. Independence of professional judgment I. Accessible civil remedies for negligence and breach of other duties owed, and disciplinary sanctions for misconduct J. Diversity and inclusion among legal services providers and freedom from discrimination for those receiving legal services and in the justice system

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges that each state’s highest court, and those of each territory and tribe, be guided by the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services when they assess the court’s existing regulatory framework and any other regulations they may choose to develop concerning non-traditional legal service providers.

FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing contained in this Resolution abrogates in any manner existing ABA policy prohibiting non lawyer ownership of law firms or the core values adopted by the House of Delegates in Resolution 10F, adopted on July 11, 2000.

DELETIONS STRUCK THROUGH; ADDITIONS UNDERLINED"

Lorelei Laird quotes ABA President Paulette Brown, who released
the following statement after Resolution 105 was adopted:

"The adoption of Resolution 105 is intended to
create a framework to guide the courts in the face of the burgeoning
access to justice crisis and fast-paced change affecting the delivery of
legal services. The ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision
of Legal Services that was adopted provides for the protection of the
public, the advancement of the rule of law, the independence of
professional judgment and diversity and inclusion among legal services
providers as well as freedom from discrimination for those receiving
legal services. Moving forward, it allows the assessment of regulations
that may develop concerning nontraditional legal service providers. The
ABA recognizes the importance of evaluating the changes in delivery of
legal services and the need for the ABA to carefully analyze these
changes so that the public and the legal profession are protected and
lawyers maintain the ability to serve their clients."

This resolution by no means resolves the many questions raised for traditional lawyers by nontraditional legal services, as Lorelei Laird reports in her article in the ABA Journal. Take a look.

Subscribe To LawPundit

LawPundit Email Follow

Search LawPundit

LawPundit Impressum

Responsible for Blog Content: Verantwortlich für den Inhalt:(required by German Law):Andis KaulinsGartenstrasse 1056841 Traben-TrarbachGermanyContact: first and last name dot-separated at gmail dot com